Posts Tagged ‘eir’

Well, here’s the other viewpoint, from that blog what doesn’t allow The People to make comments, what gets five-figures a year of taxpayer money to express its leader’s political views, what’s run by the King of the Tenderloin, the NIMBY King, who lives in a six-bedroom, four-bath mansion somewhere in the East Bay, fair ‘nough.

Hey, NIMBYs, infrastructure isn’t beautiful.

Click to expand

Sorry.

Is this what the NIMBYs want more of, laughable infrastructure?

Via Sunglint:“‘What is this, Mumbai?” Said by a visiting Canadian engineer while looking out my study window in the Mission”

How about this, NIMBY’s? Why don’t you get together and deal with AT&T on a more local basis, the way your elected and appointed officials have already worked out. Frankly, I don’t care if you want to shake down T for money in my hood, if you all want to hold connectivity hostage to your demands, cause I don’t want the U-Verse.

Well, AT&T Regional Vice President of External Affairs Marc Blakeman had his hands full yesterday at the Board of Supervisors over the whole AT&T U-Verse NIMBY shakedown issue.

Here’s what he had to say after the Board of Supervisors voted to kick the can down the road for a few weeks:

“Tonight the SF Board of Supervisors recognized and praised the unprecedented community outreach AT&T has conducted as we work collaboratively with neighborhoods to site the infrastructure necessary to bring San Franciscans choice and competition. They provided a roadmap to getting the approval needed to begin the largest upgrade in our 130+ year history. We look forward to working with them in the weeks ahead and continuing our dialogue with community groups across the city.”

OK then. That’s that for the time being.

Now, read a blow-by blow account from Sunglint, below.

AT&T RVP MB at the BoS:

Here’s Sunglint’s statement for the record:

“As a San Francisco resident, I am concerned about the present state of our communications infrastructure. In my professional career, I interact with many software engineers all over the world. When they visit San Francisco, one of the items that invariably comes up is our woeful internet infrastructure.

How can it be, visiting engineers will ask, can the city minutes from the heart of Silicon Valley, with Google, Twitter, all of media gulch, have both poor wireless capability for mobile devices and ancient DSL? In Europe, “regular” DSL, nothing fancy and available for ~$40 a month, is capable of 18M bps downstream, and 2 M bps up. This includes free VOIP, digital television, and more. But let’s just concentrate on bandwidth capability, regardless of cost.

A San Francisco resident is hard-pressed to find such bandwidth, at any price, in San Francisco proper. There are three obvious choices for wired, residential high-speed internet in SF:

1) Verizon FIOS. This is only available in SF’s Financial District, and in select parts of Mission Bay.

2) Comcast cable. For just internet alone, this would be around $120. Some companies are pooling employees and negotiating better rates, but this is not an option for the rest of the public.

3) ATT Uverse fiber. This is not available in SF due to well-known issues. The highest-bandwidth Uverse in SF is Plain Old Copper DSL and stuck at 6Mbps maximum.

High speed internet access is vital for collaborative software development, and sadly San Francisco is not competitive with cities such as Austin and Chicago in the United States, and Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and London in Europe, or Tokyo and Bangalore in Asia.

Allowing ATT to proceed with its Uverse installation in SF would be a small step to help restore competitiveness. And a welcome sign. I would like to see the SF Board of Supervisors go much further, and allow all three network providers equal access to San Francisco property owners, with the end goal to make San Francisco a true world competitor in internet infrastructure, with all residents having access to high-bandwidth internet from multiple providers.”

These boxes are about as boxy as your boxy little houses, NIMBY’s. (The place where you happen to rest your head at night, that doesn’t define who you are, does it? It shouldn’t, anyway.)

Click to expand

Now myself, well I have rabbit ears and a broke-down govmint digital cable box what gets channels 2 and 4 and a few others, occasionally, so I won’t won’t be signing up for the AT&T U-Verse myself. But doesn’t San Francisco deserve 21st connectivity?

The thing is that AT&T needs to put “street cabinetry” all over the 415 to make it all work and they only put in 14 boxes before giving up the effort in 2008. But they’re back now for another try. They told me all about it over turkey samwiches the other day at that building they share with the Twitter in the SoMA. But everything they talked about is on the new website, they’ve even got a blog.

O.K. then. Anyway, AT&T’s Marc Blakeman is standing by to hear what you have to say or schedule a meeting about where to put the boxes or whatever. He’s already met with 45 groups this go-around, so why not you or your group too?

(Oh, and don’t ask about what it takes to bury these things – you don’t want to know. The hole they have to dig and air-condition and whatnot is bigger than your apartment.)

We were supposed to be the first city to get this stuff and now we’re one of the last. Oh well.

The thing is that AT&T needs to put “street cabinetry” all over the 415 to make it all work and they only put in 14 boxes before giving up the effort in 2008. But they’re back now for another try. They told me all about it over turkey samwiches the other day at that building they share with the Twitter in the SoMA. But everything they talked about is on the new website, they’ve even got a blog.

O.K. then. Anyway, AT&T’s Marc Blakeman is standing by to hear what you have to say or schedule a meeting about where to put the boxes or whatever. He’s already met with 45 groups this go-around, so why not you or your group too?

(Oh, and don’t ask about what it takes to bury these things – you don’t want to know. The hole they have to dig and air-condition and whatnot is bigger than your apartment.)

We were supposed to be the first city to get this stuff and now we’re one of the last. Oh well.

Freshman San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar is hosting yet another meeting of concern to residents of the Richmond District. The Geary BRT is a coming – are you on board? Express Yourself tonight at 7:00 PM. Deets below.

The Mayor of the Richmond District, in action:

Geary Corridor Transportation Improvements to Be the Focus of Community Meeting
Public meeting co-hosted by Supervisor Mar and San Francisco County Transportation Authority will feature Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project update

Supervisor Eric Mar and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority will co-host a community meeting to discuss the progress of the GearyCorridor Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS), among other transportation improvements under consideration for the thoroughfare. The Authority and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) are well underway with the Geary BRT environmental review process and are seeking public feedback on the analysis of changes in traffic and parking conditions, construction strategies, as well as pedestrian and streetscape enhancements that would be part of the BRT project. Agency staff also will be on hand to discuss related Geary corridor improvements, including the Mid-Richmond Traffic Calming Project.

Following up on the Geary BRT public scoping sessions held in December 2008, this community meeting will provide an opportunity for neighbors, business owners, and transit users to discuss the benefits and potential impacts of the project under consideration. The Authority hopes to finalize the Geary BRT EIR/EIS in 2010. For more information about the Geary BRT effort, visit www.GearyBRT.org.

Now that that pesky modern art has been gotten rid of, a question remains over what to do with the upper end of the Main Post. You know the Burger King corporation had an outlet that served as an Army Mess on the Presidio for so many years, it would be only fitting to give it the right of first refusal to get a chance to replace the famous itty bitty bowling alley that’s up there now.

An artist’s conception, avec just one installation of evil modern art thrown in to see if the NIMBYs can tolerate it.

This recent post here regarding the Presidio inspired a correspondent to take pen to paper (so to speak) and leave a comment. Below are the words of “PresidioPal” along with some queries. (Surprisingly, he’s not a NIMBY.) Anyway, enjoy.

The mighty, historic Great Parking Lot of the Presidio is jeopardized by the Main Post Plan. The Presidio Trust just might unpave this paradise and put up a…lawn. Heaven forfend. What happened was the Army put it in and then left. Are we bound to have it forever?

Says PP:

“If we are talking about the “decay” of the historic character of the Presidio, which is a rare national historic landmarks district chosen for the layer upon layer of American history visible on Main Post…”

What does that mean to people – landmark status? Why should people care about this? The historic character of the South was Jim Crow laws (not that we didn’t have James Crow laws outside the South, but that’s another story) – would the “historic character” argument be useful for maintaining segregation? Would you like to turn the Presidio itself into a museum, where nothing ever changes? Isn’t it an underpopulated Land of Wind and Ghosts now?

“…the Fisher art museum…”

Isn’t the name of the proposed museum Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio (CAMP). Isn’t it specifically not called The Fisher? Isn’t that one of its selling points? Isn’t it going to have like a “b” as in boy billion dollars of art in it or something, that’s not otherwise available for public view?

“…a hotel…”

Or lodge, some people are calling it a lodge, in keeping with the whole “park” theme of the Presidio. What’s wrong with a lodge in a park?

“and a modern movie house”

Or “modernized,” I’ll give you that. Didn’t it used to seat something like 1000 GIs back in the day? Do you think your millionaire NIMBY allies would like to have all those blue-collar types back in the Presidio in “their neighborhood” near the houses they inherited from their parents fair and square? Isn’t it true that the Presidio Theatre seats zero people today and that’s the way the owners of competing theatres in San Francisco like it? Isn’t it true theater owners kicked in money to oppose the Main Post Plan because they don’t want competition? Is that a good reason to oppose opening up a small three-screener that would seat far fewer people than the 1000 it was built for back in the day?

“…ADD to the “decay” by introducing non-historic elements that detract from the historic site itself…”

Does the non-historic TransAmerica pyramid detract from historic San Francisco? Should nothing ever change in town? Did a collection of histrionic societies, millionaire NIMBYs and movie theatre owners object to the Louvre Pyramid in Cour Napolean? Probably, but isn’t the pyramid a good thing, despite its “non-historic” status?

“If you take “decay” to mean delaying needed repairs to historic structures, the new buildings have nothing to do with that.”

You and your NIMBY allies are fighting for the status quo, whether you realize it or not. Congress, in its wisdom, could have put your organization in charge of the entire Presidio. It didn’t though, right? Do you acknowledge that? Why should anybody pay attention to your unfunded mandates? Your half-baked if-we-had-some-ham-we-could-have-a-ham-sandwich, if-we-also-had-some-bread-but-only-if-five-million-dollars-fell-from-the-sky alternative plans? Back in the 1990s, Congress did something quite unique with the Presidio. Of course, it could have sold off a lot of land to condo developers. Would you prefer that?

“Let’s get it straight, the proposal is for three major new structures in a national historic landmark.”

Is that really an argument? Shouldn’t you go further and explain why people should care about national historic landmark status? And actually, it’s more than three structures, but I get what you mean. Is the 700-car parking lot historic? Was the Burger King historic? Should we bring it back to honor the military?

“Why not a contemporary museum on Alamo Square?”

The reason why is that millionaire NIMBYs and the Planning Commission would tear that one apart. That’s the short answer.

If I had any advice for the Main Post, it would be this – lively up yourself, mon! This may or may not happen, depending upon the lawyers, the judges and the juries associated with the forthcoming lawsuits.

June 1, 2009 is the end of public comment period for several key documents related to the Main Post planning process. Three draft documents have been circulating for public comment since February 27, 2009:

The Revised Draft Main Post Update reflects the land uses and improvements the Presidio Trust intends to pursue to re-establish the Main Post as the heart of the park. Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Trust identified a “preferred alternative” that is detailed in the Revised Update and analyzed in the Draft Supplement to the SEIS. The Revised Update is also analyzed as the “undertaking” in the Revised Draft Finding of Effect; prepared under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as part of the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation.

In June 2008, the Trust released an earlier draft of the Main Post Update and a Draft SEIS which analyzed a range of alternatives. An earlier Draft Finding of Effect was released in August 2008, which analyzed the effects on historic resources of all the alternatives that were presented in the Draft SEIS. All documents can be found on the Trust’s website: www.presidio.gov.

Comments will be accepted on all documents, both current and past drafts. Commentators are free to organize their comments in any way they choose. They may comment separately on the different documents, or address all documents at one time. Commentators are also welcome to address specific issues or comment on specific proposals. The Trust will consider and respond to comments on all of the drafts when developing the final documents.

NEXT STEPS

NHPA Section 106 Consultation: Finalizing the Finding of Effect and Resolving Adverse Effects
A Final Finding of Effect will be issued early this summer, formally completing the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation under the NHPA. The Historic Resources section of the Final SEIS will be consistent with the Final Finding of Effect. The Final Finding of Effect will be available on the Trust’s website and will be sent to all consulting parties.

The next phase of the Section 106 consultation process is the resolution phase during which consulting parties identify ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects presented in the Finding of Effect. The resolution phase results in an agreement document that establishes parameters for how projects can proceed. A schedule for the remainder of the Section 106 consultation will be issued to all consulting parties early in June.

NEPA: Finalizing the SEIS and Main Post Update
Over the course of the summer, the Trust will finalize the environmental review, issuing a Final SEIS and Final Main Post Update sometime in the fall. The Final SEIS includes a response to all comments. A notice of availablity will be issued once the final documents are released. The final documents will also be available on the Trust’s website. After the final environmental documents are issued, a 30-day no action period ensues.

Record of Decision
The Trust will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) only after both the NEPA and NHPA processes are completed. The ROD memorializes the decision made by the Presidio Trust Board of Directors and clearly articulates the actions that the Trust will pursue in the Main Post and the reasoning behind the Trust’s decision. Once the ROD is adopted, the Final Main Post Update will amend the Presidio Trust Management Plan for the Main Post District.

Well look what just sprouted up in Golden Gate Park – PUBLIC HEARING notices like the one you see below. So, it looks like DPT ORDER No. 3619, adopted just four days ago, will be the subject of a hearing at City Hall on Friday, May 29, 2009.

Here’s the upshot – three miles of bike lanes are going in (that’s both ways on JFK Drive from Park Presidio (basically) for almost a mile and a half to the Stanyan, Oak, Fell, Kezar area where the Panhandle starts (basically), so that means 133 parking spaces are coming out.

Click to expand.

That’s the best I can figure, anyway. (I’m not too good at this legal stuff, took the LSAT, got a 48, srsly.)

Project 7-4John F. Kennedy Drive Bicycle Lanes, Kezar to Transverse Drives
This project would involve the installation of Class II bicycle lanes[which means a regular bike lane with stripes on both sides] in both directions on John F. Kennedy Drive from Kezar Drive to Transverse Drive in Golden Gate Park. This project would add Class II bicycle lanes… by narrowing existing travel lanes. A limited number of parking spaces would be removed along portions of John F. Kennedy Drive where the narrowing of travel lanes would not provide sufficient space to add Class II bicycle lanes.